- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 14:40:08 +0100
- To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
- Cc: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2015-12-31 18:00, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2015-12-31 17:38, Barry Leiba wrote: >> Hi, Julian, and thanks for the quick reply on a holiday extended weekend. > > Dito :-) > >> ... >>>> -- Section 3 -- >>>> Please consider using RFC 7405 for the ABNF for "clear". >>> >>> That would replace >>> >>> clear = %x63.6C.65.61.72; "clear", case-sensitive >>> >>> with >>> >>> clear = %s"clear"; case-sensitive >>> >>> (and add a dependency to the ABNF extension). >>> >>> I'm not super-excited about this notation, and it seems we would be the >>> first ones to actually use it (implying lack of validation tools etc). >>> >>> What do others think? >> >> It's a small thing, and it's up to the working group, of course. I >> would prefer the change, because (1) I think it makes it more >> readable, and (2) we have put 7405 on the Standards Track, so we >> should use it. It wouldn't be a bad thing for us to break ground on >> it. > > I might invest a bit of time to teach bap (Bill's ABNF Parser) to accept > this; and once I can validate it I could be convinced to actually use it. Done in <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2749>... So what does the rest of the WG think? Should we use this bleading-edge ABNF feature? >>>> -- Section 3.1 -- >>>> For the persist ABNF, why 1DIGIT, and not just DIGIT? Or, for that >>>> matter, why not simply "1" ? Other specifications might then add other >>>> values using << persist =/ "2" >>, for example. >>> >>> I believe the intent was that new values do not imply changing the >>> parser >>> (which would be implied by changing the ABNF), but simply would allow >>> new >>> values here. >> >> Three questions here, really, bundled into one: >> >> 1. Why "1DIGIT", rather than "DIGIT"? Purely editorial, of course... >> what's the benefit of using the "1"? >> >> 2. Why does "persist" have to be digits at all? I'm generally not a >> fan of unnecessarily coding concepts into numbers, rather than using >> short words. If it's necessary (or useful), that's fine. I don't see >> why here. > > I'll pass this to those who suggested the syntax :-) > ... Thinking if it some more...: 1DIGIT vs DIGIT: it's really just a matter of style, I'm ok with changing it. Digits: I believe it was inspired by "DNT", where of course the same question could be asked. Patrick: is Firefox shipping with support for "persist" already? Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 3 January 2016 13:40:41 UTC